WWLAN troubles

[Gatewave]

Hey everyone,

We have setup a Wide area wireless network in the centre of a city and have around 12 points that are all connected to through eachother or directly to the central AP. The central AP is a Netgear WG102 which is working in Point-MultiPoint mode as well as AP. We have used up all list of 4 bridge connections as well as using some repeaters and clients to connected to this AP. So all in all there are 7 AP connected to this WG102 (4 bridges and 3 clients/repeaters).
The network works most of the time but as soon as there is big traffic generated the AP hungs and it needs to be restarted. This started to happen so often that its becoming a problem.

Just want to ask if anyone had any experience with people connecting mixed modes to the same AP as well as connecting too many clients/bridges.
And why does this AP hungs ? Anyone got any experience WG102 and WG302.
We tried using WG302 as well but it seems like they dont like mixing modes of bridge and Client/repeater so it limits us to only 4 connections.

The current solution we are looking at is installing another "main" AP so that we have two APs that can connect rest of the network to our server... This should reduce the load of WG102 for now.
The future plans using 4 AP with 90deg sector antennas to cover 360deg.

[M/Q]

I do not know all of the details, but you are asking consumer grade equipment to run a WISP setup. How many individual clients are on the system at any given time?

I have yet to see a WISP setup that uses repeaters to ever work well. It is just not a good approach to use. I would strongly suggest rethinking that whole design. If you need to use wireless to backhaul, then you need to get multi-band devices. Use 802.11a for the backhaul as it is capable of more traffic and then use 802.11b/g for the access points.

As for the sector antennas, I would strongly recommend using three 120deg and three devices as that way you will be using three non-interfering channels.

[Gatewave]

thanks for the reply,
Well we have at least 15 customers connected to our network at one time... most of the big customers are connected to the points where the stations are. Another words we setup a station say on a building then connected the residents of the building using a switch. Some of the stations have a receiving client AP and then another one to retransmit the signal out or we might use a repeater to do the same thing depending how muc traffic needs to go through that repeater.

Well the reason we try to stay away from the 11a is because the signal does not travel as further as we get with 11b plus the equipment is more expensive.
What we try to do is use all 13 channels to seperate the stations so they dont interfere... we dont have much problem with that....
What im worried about is that the "main" AP (Netgear WG102) seem to crash when its getting too much traffic (or connections more then 6 in our case) through it ... but the what worries me is that traffic is not much ... something like 20gigabyte a month.

Well we need to look at the possible sector antennas and the desity of the APs around the place .... We current have 3 120deg antennas on the order so we might experient with them when they get here.

I think that way we can balance the load through different APs and minimise the traffic though through the single unit.

We are looking to move into more industrial grade units as we get larger customer base... at this stage with the current equipment I think we should be fine handling close to 100 customer at once.

Anyone with experience WG102 or WG302 could you please post your thought about these units. We have found WG102 to work alot better then WG302 as we can use mixed mode with WG102 and not limit our selves to 4 bridges.

Thanks

[M/Q]

I get a kick out of your post. You keep asking for opinions yet refuse to at least listen to the simplest and more than likely the same answer you are going to get from other people who have the same experience level I have.

I will state a few more obvious concepts and then stop wasting my time. First, of all thirteen channels that you mention, there are only 4 groups of three channels that do not interfere with each other. If you use other than those groups you will have interference.

Second, 100 clients through your system as setup is beyond the capabilities of it, IMO.

[Gatewave]

Well to start with let me say that we doing this with a limited badget... We cannot afford to pay over $1000 for Cisco unit or another $1000 for each Antenna. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do this or try using the consumer grade units to achive the same goal.
The interference is a problem which we have been battling with from the first day.... in our case we get at least 30 odd APs on all the channels from each point where we have a station installed... so no matter what channel you use you get interference.... some cases more some cases less. We have orgnised the channels so its gives us least interferance based on the archtecture and channel selection.
I have to look into the channel grouping as i was not aware that there are certain channel grouping...and that channels can directly interfere... I know some channels interfeare with 2.4G cordless phones (Excl 1, 6 and 11) but thats about it. Still if the stations are kms away and correct channels are selected with directional antennas then I think there shouldn't be much of a problem.

I guess we have to be creative and look outside the squire when trying to connect over 100 clients to our network...shouting out "not going to work" is not the best approch in such cases. It does not hurt to try and find the way to achive the best results.

[M/Q]

I take offense at your comment about not being creative or thinking outside the box. You have no idea as to my skill set or what I have accomplished. If you re-read my post I was pretty specific in my point "your system as setup". How much clearer I would need to be is just another indicator that you are asking questions but do not want to hear the real and sometimes hard answers.

As for interference, why do you think I suggested 802.11a? Do you think you are the only one dealing with RF pollution. It has been done before, you are not breaking any new ground. To bad you are not willing to listen. But, rather forge ahead blindly and make all the same mistakes. That aspect, is a pity as well. It just propogates the public's low opinion of many WISP's.

[Gatewave]

Well im sorry if I have offended you... that was not my intension... I appologise for that.
In the past two post you keep telling that im not listening but but only hand on advise i hear so far is to use 11a and use 120deg sectors (which I compleely understand where you coming from and agree with that) rather then 4 90deg.
I know im not breaking new grounds but i have explained my situation how the network has been setup and how its been working (over a year now by the way). I know there is room for improvment in any setup but this is what we have to work with. Even though Im in Australia the setup is in a different country where you cannot walk into a shop and get any equipment you after. So the choices are limited in what we can use.
I would of love using 11a for links between the stations and 11g for the connection of the clients, or use dedicated outdoor APs with high gain omni or dircectional anennas but we dont have such luxury.

So based on what we got we need to make best of it... I know there are problems that we are facing but we need to work on them solving it rather dreaming on what we should or could of used.

[M/Q]

If 11a is not a possibility then I would double up my devices and still have a separate link for back haul and one for the access point, using non interfering channels. Repeating is just not a good idea period. It cuts your bandwidth in half on each repeat.

[Gatewave]

Yeah we already have two networks (internal that links up the stations) and a public that links the customers to our network. They are on different IP address as well. We have done our best to seperate the channeling and I think its working quiet well. We got arvg. 3ms ping over km or so distance.
What I think we are lacking is the main pipe line connectivity between the stations and the server.... and think that main AP takes hit and cannot handle it. We installed a second "main" AP and going to seperate the network today to reduce and balance the load.

We only use AP as a repeaters in an area where there is not much traffic being used. When the load is increased on that repeater what we do is make that repeating AP into a client and install another AP as a bridge or an AP depending on the need in that location.

What i guess i really need to know is.... mixing the modes in AP does it effect the functionality of the AP. Does connecting a repeater to an AP takes more resources from the AP then connecting a bridge node?
Is it better to use a bridge or a client mode when connecting a node to a point?
From what I understand the bridge (point-to-point) will be most stabel link but that limits us to only 4 points of connectivity (in case of using a WG302/102). But i think we are able to use 255 clients to connect to same APs.... but will they have a stable connection compared with bridge mode... assuming same equipment is used both as a client or a bridge.
I think Im just thinking outloud but and hope somebody can help me with these questions who has greater experience in this field.

thanks

[M/Q]

Ok, you should have started this thread with this last post as it is the most accurate and explains what you are doing. We are more on the same page than I would have guessed.

Bridge links are always preferred for back hauls over multipoint. Much more secure and focused if you will, since it only is looking for one remote client.

I would appreciate some sort of diagram of your setup. With that, I think maybe we could get quite a bit more granular as to what you are trying to do. It can be as simple as an ASCII diagram that I use all over this forum, but please include everything. Really, not to be over the top, but you are getting quite a deal here, most pro's get a great deal of money for this stuff. So, take advantage of it and give us the most detail you can.

[Gatewave]

ok thanks I'll draw up a small diagram of the system to give you an idea what we trying to do.

[pbeddy]

I have a number of WG102 units connecting in to out main LAN via another WG102. Works fine when the traffic is light, but when users get busy, the unit connected to LAN locks up and either needs to be restarted or comes back after a random period ranging from 10 minutes to 2 hours.
I have swopped the AP's, the cabing, the power supplies, the switches and reflashed the units to the latest firmware.
Only today did I find this thread shwing the same symptoms I experienced.
Did you get any resolution?
I am wanting to expand the wireless side of our network, but am hesitant to proceed with a stable solution.

[Gatewave]

Wow it really has been over a year since I have posted this thread.
Our network is going strong and has been expanding.
Its now passing gigabytes of traffic every day and supporting 100s of clients.

There are few tips I guess I can give you from my experience on this. Some of them generic some hardware specific.

* Frist of all as been mentioned before by the admins/moderators on this site do a correct architechure of the network.
* Dont use the same IP for Links as well as for clients to connect to. Seperate the networks with routers.
* Dont allow the clients to access your backbone at any time. Seperate them using a router.
* Use ONLY bridge mode for Backbones,
* Use ONLY AP mode for Lastmile (Clients to connect to).
* Dont Mix the connection methods (bridge with AP/Client modes)
* Use high performance APs for your Backbone and starting points. eg Cisco
* Know the limitation of your APs, how many clients can connect to each point.

Just some of the handy tips if you are planning to create a WWAN or WISP using low badget.

Now more specific details about the equipment as the member asked.

After months of trying different configurations we have worked out the following.
WG302 works best as a bridge AP for Backbone. It can work Lastmile AP (and I was told it supports 128 users) but there is a problem with it, where clients cannot connect to it using AP Client mode of another AP. We tried with different brand APs nor Dlink or TrendNet APs wanted to connect to WG302 as an AP Client or a AP Repeater. So because of we are NOT using WG302 as a Last mile.
On the other hand WG102 works fine as both bridge and AP however it has tendency not to reconnect to some brands of APs when working in bridge mode, therefore we dont use it for a bridge any longer.
It however can work nicely as a Lastmile AP as long as there are not many users connected to it. We are keeping an eye on one of our points which been playing up recently since we have installed WG102 as a Lastmile AP. I'll post our finding on this as we get more info.

Other equipment we have used has been TrendNet TEW-453APB. Its a Hot Spot equipment at very nice price. It does have it limitations however it works great as a backbone AP in bridge mode or as an AP Lastmile with less <15 users. It thend to crush/hang when more users are connected.
Good points about it, is that it has a POE, It reconnects to its PTMP AP when it has been restarted, when restarted it takes very little time to comeback to life, has built in telnet and other userful features.

Another AP which we use mostly as AP Client/repeater is the Dlink 2100AP. Its affordable has great features and works quiet well.
Some of the issues we have found to be:

* does not reconnect to some of the brands of APs when they are restarted. the 2100 needs to be restarted to reconnect with the source AP.
* Does not send the MAC address of the Client LAn adapter if connect through LAN cable. It send its own MAC addres. If MAC address of the client LAN adapter is required AP needs to be put into AP repeater mode.
* Common problem with 2100 is that it create this fault where it keeps restarting... apparently related to unstable power source.

Other brands we have used have been Plant, Alpha and Belkin.

If you need any info on any of the above brands we would be more then happy to help assist you with practical expertise.

[pbeddy]

Thank you for the tips.
Just to let you know: In August I opened a support case with Netgear on this issue. About 10 days ago they finally got back to me and suggested that I try the new firmware version 4.0.16. http://kbserver.netgear.com/release_notes/D103179.asp

I was a bit sceptical, as it did not mention the actual problems we were having.
However, I upgraded all of the units and have not looked back. I have a script hthat pings the distant units every 30 seconds, and have not had a single problem since upgrading - even running them multi-homed with heavy traffic.

[wifitrooper]

I wouldnt use netgear for a wisp anyways. bad idea... thats like putting a dlink router in the place of a cisco router serving hundreds of clients... They just cant handle the massive amounts of pps (packets per second) the cpu is way to weak and the firmware will lock up. Id stay away from netgear if I was running a wisp.